Amazon.co.uk : Origin Of Species

Well Hello there readers, today I bring great news of a fun discussion that I have been having on Amazon.co.uk regarding the book “Origin Of Species”.

I was just interested to see whether Amazon had a book on Charles Darwin written by Ray Comfort. I already had the book but wondered how the evolutionist/humanist would view it. In fact, I had many copies of this book and gave them as presents to Christian and secular friends (and family) as it’s very helpful and informative. The book is scientifically accurate and shows how Darwin’s theory is not just out-of-date but also scientifically no longer feasible (particular in light of having no evidence including missing link fossils which Darwin predicted should be in abundance).

To find this book all I had to do is to type “Charles Darwin Ray Comfort” in Amazon search box. Only one book was displayed and it was the correct one. When I viewed the comments on this book, I was shocked to see that it

was all negative. These comments seemed to be unfair and unjustified particularly as the book is scientifically accurate. It was obvious that the comments came from a biased worldview and particularly against Ray Comfort personally just because he’s a creationist. Check the comments for yourself Amazon.co.uk: Origin of Species. The book could not be faulted, they just didn’t like that it was against evolution! Often we hear evolutionists say “if creation is true then why don’t we see more material to support it”. Well, that’s maybe because it either doesn’t make it to the secular world (ie censored – check out “The Great 21st Century Scientific Watergate“) or it’s heavily ridiculed by religious humanists/evolutionists confusing or discouraging the average person who wants to find out. The comments on this book are a perfect example!

This post is in response to Mr Marshall’s postings dated 21 July 2010 07:57 and 21 July 2010 07:58

“Are you bowing out now?”

———————————-
NEVVVEEEEERRRRR! – lol. Just kidding! 🙂 Of course, I’m happy to be “bowing out” at any time provided you can prove your belief of evolution using empirical science or you show an unwillingness to be open-minded and to continue with your belief system despite the evidence.

Important notice before we start

—————————————-
As previously pointed out, this website is not appropriate to discuss/debate the subject of Evolution vs. Creation. If you wish I am happy to sign-up on an appropriate public website that you subscribe to in order to communicate further. In the meantime, I encourage you (or any other person who wishes to comment on this website) to stick to why you should (or shouldn’t) purchase this book. So far, in spite of this lengthy discussion/debate, no one has offered a valid reason to discredit the scientific contents of Ray Comfort’s introduction.

“I have wonder whether you think anyone actually believes that…”

———————————————————————————-
This was in your response to my comment “Never mind, it could have been worse! I could have believed that every living thing on Earth came from a ROCK! :-)”. We’ll actually you do believe that :(. Every evolutionist must believe this if they follow current textbooks that tells us that approx 3.9 (up to 3.5) billion years ago, Earth cooled down, water vapour condensed, and after millions of years of rain (on Earth/ROCK), life spontaneously emerged from primordial soup (which came from Earth/ROCK) etc. Viola :). What’s really funny is that if I told you that God did it, you call me religious, but you call your belief SCIENCE 🙂

“You assert this, but have still failed to demonstrate it.”

——————————————————————–
You said this to my comment regarding Charles Darwin’s book “It was a lovely story, written well but it was NOT TRUE!”. I thought the burden of proof is on you? By default, the theory of evolution is untrue (ie NOT TRUE) until proven true.

“The modern evolutionary synthesis is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence. Despite what you appear to think, it has not been falsified.”

———————————————————————————————————————–
First of all, there is NO evidence (never mind multiple independent lines of evidence). Secondly, it is false by default until PROVEN true!

I think your claim that I cannot have a sense of morality is inane in the extreme

———————————————————————————————————————–
I think I make my position very clear. Evolutionists are unable to define absolutes when it comes to knowing rights and wrongs. The answer given will totally depend on the person you ask. For example, if you ask Hitler, he would tell you that it’s ok to kill Jews. How would you know it’s wrong and how would you convince Hitler otherwise (if he were alive of course)? Evolution is not just wrong but a dangerous religion that could promote very bad behaviour and practices. In fact, even the statement “bad behaviour” is confusing since in evolutionary terms this may actually be a good thing depending on the evolutionary results you want to achieve, right?

“I think you would have to ask Ray why he thinks it’s okay to lie.”

———————————————————————————
You missed the point here Mr Marshall. I was saying that Ray Comfort fears God and therefore he has no incentive to lie; unlike evolutionists who are UNABLE to tell whether a lie is acceptable or not due to their inability to distinguish absolute right from wrong. Therefore, it is more likely that YOU would lie (no insult intended). Also, the point was that EVEN if he DID lie, that doesn’t make the book inaccurate or unscientific. In summary, whether he did lie or not (although unlikely), the book should be judged independently for its scientific accuracy.

———————————————————————————————————————–
Good, I’m glad we agree on this point. Humans NEVER had tails. Therefore, Ray Comfort did not deserve your original criticism regarding his comments “‘human tails’? Where on earth (or in the fossil record) are humans with tails?”. Ray Comfort is very aware that some people call the coccyx a tailbone but that name doesn’t make it a tail. It’s just a convenient name used by evolutionists to push through their religion. This is one of many examples of how Ray Comfort is unfairly criticised (primarily by evolutionists/humanists) to prevent his book from being purchased. This book must be a real threat to you (as evolutionists) otherwise we wouldn’t be having this debate about its validity!!!

“Evolution does not pertain to cosmology or abiogenesis. Abiogenesis certainly seems the most likely origin of life to me, but if it turned out that it wasn’t, it wouldn’t affect whether evolution were true.”

———————————————————————————————————————–
Cosmology and abiogenesis is sold as a package deal with evolution. In fact, one can argue that the contents of this package is closely linked and interdependent. You see, if any one (or both) of these origins were not by chance, then it’s on purpose. This is where a creator comes in, throwing a BIG spanner in the works. Although you may THINK it doesn’t affect evolution, in reality the consequence is very profound.

“Evolution is an observable and testible science; speciation…has been seen in the lab and in the wild.”

———————————————————————————————————————–
No, no, no, no. This is not true! I was under the impression that you understood evolution. Firstly, the thing about evolution is that it is NOT observable or testable science. Secondly, “Speciation” that you claim seen in the lab and wild is nothing more than a variation within a kind! I am willing to tolerate and discuss any claim evolutionist/humanists bring to the table, but this statement is untrue and MUST be withdrawn! If such a debate is to take place, then I have to assume that you at least know the difference between micro and macro evolution!

“…we can observe evolution occurring”

————————————————
No you can’t! If you could, it wouldn’t be a theory! Please see my response above

“My position depends on evidence”

——————————————-
I’m still waiting for it!

“I advise you look at a snowflake and try and find the designer for that”

—————————————————————————————-
A snowflake is not a good example for lack of design. Indeed the opposite is true. We know the reason a snowflake produces interesting shapes/patterns is because of the way the atoms in water molecules (H2O) are aligned. Therefore, without going into physics (but we can if necessary); it’s the alignment of these atoms that causes the interesting patterns in snowflakes. Therefore, it is the design in the molecule that gives these shapes/patterns. This is very similar to having a bunch of magnets where each one is carefully carved in the shape of a dodecahedron (for example) with mix polarity. When these bunch of magnets come close to each other, they attract/repel etc. and produce interesting patterns. The number of magnets will dictate the size and shape etc. The result is random (that’s right: random) but still producing complex patterns. However the original shape is DESIGNED. Surely if you saw a magnet in that shape it wouldn’t even cross your mind whether it’s a coincidence or design, would you?

That’s why an evolutionist (you note I haven’t said a scientist) is unable to contribute wisely so long as the evolutionary spectacles are firmly placed in their mind. Regarding Crick’s comments, I happen to agree with some of them but he still has the evolution spectacles on, therefore, he is influenced by a belief/religious system that hinders his discoveries and predictions.

“…look at flu vaccines…if you think evolution is irrelevant to biological research”

———————————————————————————————————————–
I see…you are now attributing flu vaccines to predictions made by evolutionists!?! The evolution theory (mainly macro evolution that I object to) did not contribute ANYTHING to this discovery! This was done by a dedicated team of scientists and physicians who worked jolly hard to get the results they wanted. The flu vaccine mainly came about as a result of trial and error. And although no “one” person can take credit for the discovery, in 1946 Dr Thomas Francis was given an award for the vaccine by no other than President Harry Truman himself. Sorry Mr Marshall, your flu vaccination example adds nothing to contradict my explanation to Dr Crick’s quote.

———————————————————————————————————————–
I’m still waiting to hear ONE evidence that supports your contention. That’s why I call it a religion. At least my contention is not added to textbooks and museums using tax money and fraudulently called science!

Re ERV “One of many lines of evidence as clearly stated in my previous post”

———————————————————————————————–
You would have been better off given me some evidence that’s watertight/indisputable to support your scientific hypothesis? This is sadly not one of them. More of this later…

“Wait, what..? No! Scientists never thought we decended from chimps”

—————————————————————————————
I see…apparently that’s offensive to you….ok, how about “chimp like creature” Is that better? You should really read the report carefully. Here is a link from CBC News http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/10/01/tech-biology-hominid-fossil-ardi.html. It says: “Researchers concluded that both the human branch and the ape branch of the family tree have evolved significantly from its common ancestor, and chimps can no longer be thought of as a `proxy’ for that common ancestor.”. On National Geographic headline it says: “Human evolution not from chimps, fossil study confirms” (http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2009/10/human-evolution-not-from-chimp.html). In the short video clip from the Science Magazine regarding the same report http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5960/1598-b check out locations 00:47 to 01:02, 01:16 to 01:3, 05:33 to 05:42 and 06:30 to 06:40. They called it exactly what I did; “Chimpanzee” or “Chimp”. Look…, if it’s any consolation to you, I don’t believe we came from Chimps either :). Finally, regarding the apology that scientists made regarding our ancestors which I referred to in my previous post; I should have been more accurate and refer to it as an “admission of fault”. You will find this on location 04:21 to 04:38 of the same video clip. “Please explain how multiple ERVs are found in the same place on the genomes of species you claim are unrelated. What is the plausible mechanism by which this can happen if not evolution?”

———————————————————————————————————————–
The reason you believe that ERVs provide evidence for evolution is because a) you don’t know enough about it, b) you have been informed by close-minded evolutionists that common ancestry is the only viable option. I don’t blame them. It seems to help the cause of humanism (not science), so why not? 🙂 Whilst the subject is too complex to include in this post, I will attempt to keep it brief(ish) but please remember that YOU asked the question:

First of all, evolutionists appear to be opportunists. They are quick to highlight common ancestry for ERVs but are happy to ignore other evidence that contradict the theory such as the vast differences in proteins between two very similar frog species (Spetner, 69). Also, it is an amazing coincidence that evolution hypothesis seems to be able to accommodate any phenomenon (ERVs or otherwise) whether it supports or contradicts it! That’s because evolution is not science, just a simple religion that is made to fit the evidence (not the other way around).

It is worth pointing out that evolutionists never predicted the existence of ERVs before they were found in the late 1940s. It would have been very impressive if they had. This would have at least gone someway to say that this hypothesis was able to predict SOMETHING. Nevertheless, apparently this hypothesis is comfortable either way and doesn’t have to foretell ANYTHING. Well done, it appears to be fool proof 🙂 more fool than proof 🙂

Carl Schmid said “We know there’s a lot of DNA that we don’t know its function. The fact that we don’t know its function doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a function”. That’s right Carl, well done! It’s only “assumed” that ERVs have no function, not a scientific fact (see Edward E. Max “Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics” Sec 5.4 http://talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/). Allow me to point out that “Junk DNA” is now no longer considered JUNK. Walkup said “Recent research has begun to show that many of these useless-looking sequences do have a function” (Walkup, 19). Woodmorappe said “Evidence for function is not limited to generic `junk DNA’, but is now known for representatives of all major types of pseudogenes” (Woodmorappe 2000,57). To quote Jerlstrom

“This is a serious problem for evolution, as it is expected that natural selection would remove this type of DNA if it were useless, since DNA manufactured by the cell is energetically costly. Because of the lack of selective pressure on this neutral DNA, one would also expect that `old’ pseudogenes should be scrambled beyond recognition as a result of accumulated random mutations. Moreover, a removal mechanism for neutral DNA is now known.” (Jerlstrom, 15.).

In 1998 Carl Schmid suggested that these “junk DNA” were not junk, but rather a mechanism to help cells repair themselves. Francis Collins said “It looks pretty convincing” (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/11/MN180850.DTL). Please note what Dr. Max said

“there are no examples of `shared errors’ that link mammals to other branches of the genealogic tree of life on earth. . . . Therefore, the evolutionary relationships between distant branches on the evolutionary genealogic tree must rest on other evidence besides `shared errors.'” (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/). If you get time, have a quick look at http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/03/junk-dna-real-story.html.

Did you know that there have been many claims in the past that a certain type of genetic data gave definitive proof of common ancestry, only to have research reveal that the situation was more complicated than assumed? Check out David Hillis’s brief historical review at http://www.discovery.org/a/9941.

Ok, now let’s assume for a minute that ERVs ARE caused by a virus (and I’m not saying it did). Well the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys etc. are very similar. So if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? Well, Yes! (check out http://www.mhrc.net/pseudogene.htm). It has now been discovered that integration of human and animal retroviruses into the host genome is not entirely random. For example, the murine leukemia virus prefers transcription start sites, while the human immunodeficiency virus prefers to insert actively transcribed genes (Mitchel et al. 2004). This also applies to pathogenic retroviruses.

But if ERV sequences have a function, then is it possible that God have had a functional reason for initially placing them at the same chromosomal location in separately created species? May be retroviruses are corruptions of an original complex system that was designed to facilitate diversification within kinds (per Wood). A question that requires an open-minded approach to the problem, ie think outside the box (education, education, education)! Is it possible that exogenous retroviruses have been derived from endogenous viruses when viral particles were released from the cell by budding (exogenization)? Are we anywhere near outside the box yet? I guess it depends on who’s listening and whether he/she is an evolutionist who has been indoctrinated to think only ONE WAY!

Geneticists have found ERVs that benefit the host cell and are involved in a range of physiological processes expressed in productive tissues (ovaries, testes, placenta, etc.) and early embryo (Arimi et al. 2006; Kjeldbjerg et al. 2008; Peaston et al. 2004). ERVs, especially their LTR (Long Terminal Repeats), is believed to provide regulatory sequences for nearby genes (Conley, Piriyapongsa, and Jordan 2008) and repair mechanisms. ERVs are now even believed to provide resistance to exogenous retroviruses through interference. If you want to know more about visit http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/arj/v2/Exogenization_Endogenization.pdf. Please study it carefully before giving your response. It will save both of us a lot of time.

Do you really believe that a virus should have these benefits? Is this your watertight evidence for common ancestry? Do you still want to continue using this as your indisputable proof of macro-evolution? Do you have anything else?

The Religion of Evolution

——————————–
Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote the Foreword to “The Origin of Species” (100th edition), admitted: “Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable”. H.S. Lipson, professor of physics, University of Manchester, UK, said “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend’ their observations to fit with it”

Mr Marshall, you are a religious person but the problem is that you don’t know it. Despite that, please note, I don’t mind that except please refrain from calling it science.

Finally, I am happy to continue this debate in an appropriate forum. Please provide a public website for me to sign up to if you wish to communicate further.

Conclusion

—————
This is why education is very important otherwise we are going to breed a whole new generation that are totally brainwashed (ie indoctrinated) and can’t think for themselves! Is it really possible to replace our humanistically trained teachers/professors who insist that time, space and matter is self created! I wish we could, but I doubt it. Having said that, perhaps it’s not too late to make a small difference by exposing this generation to some education through books such as Ray Comfort’s? However I expect some opposition from religious evolutionist who don’t even understand the subject and still call it science!